Human as a monogamous species…
May 20, 2005 at 4:59 pm #956sole_05Participant
1. Humans are actually considered to be a monogamous species and yet we all know of examples where the single pair concept is not rigorously maintained. In this case are we different from other species?
2. In a case where species have mating systems with multiple partners, polygyny (one male mating with many females) is more common than polyandry (one female mating with many males). I just wondering and want to understand on the sort of conditions that would lead to polyandry.
What do u think?
May 20, 2005 at 7:48 pm #22842
1. First of all you have to understand that humans do not have sex for reproduction like almost every other organism on this planet, they do it for fun. So, the laws of ecology do not apply here. My ecology professor said “They say human reproduction is asortative, but nowadays it’s heading more and more to pancmictical” 😀 😀
2. Think about social insects: the queen mates with a lot of males. if you need an example more “closely related” to us, i suggest Heterocefalus glaber. It is a small mammal that has a style of organisation that resembles that of social insects(workers, soldiers etc). Kind of a “social mammal”
Nice question, makes me think about the good old days when i was preparing for IBO..
May 20, 2005 at 8:58 pm #22850quote MrMistery:
I know some stupid (in fact ‘stupid’ is an innocent word in this situation) people who are having sex just for having babies. I think those people’s influence on others are one of the reasons of vaginismus. (can be spelled wrong.)
Maybe we can classify those ‘stupid’ people in a different subspecies… 😈
May 20, 2005 at 9:11 pm #22857
You mean they are not having a relanshionship? i do not understand the situation very well
May 20, 2005 at 9:22 pm #22860
some people have relation just for having children. no real pleasure or something like that. when some of the girls know about this situation, they think that ‘sex is bad’. this idea scares them and the problem vaginismus comes out.
May 20, 2005 at 9:27 pm #22862
Good to know.. I think 😀 😀 😀
May 21, 2005 at 2:34 am #22884sole_05Participant
Oh well done guys, thanks a lot for sharing! But just wondering, if human do it for fun as some of you said rather than producing babies or vice versa, don’t you do it for fun first than expect babies later? 😉 As some of you said (refer to your message), if human species is doing it for fun, just wondering if other species of mammals or other organisms are doing this on the same note! Do they? In this case we should not classify as different from those species with regard to this situation. Or are we still different from those species? (refer back to my question 1)
May 21, 2005 at 2:43 am #22885
Well, we have contraceptives so we can do it for non-procreational purposes. For any other specie, once they have sex, a baby will likely be produced. Also note sexual behavior is different for k and r species.
May 21, 2005 at 10:10 am #22895
I saw a documentary on dolphins once. It said that the only animals that have sex for fun are humans and dolphins. But, mithril pointed out very well those contraceptives: we do it only for fun and only a few times in our lives to procreate
June 4, 2005 at 12:53 am #23713makedonec07Participantquote :
Humans can have sex many times without protection and still not produce a baby, because the time isn’t right and the fact that 75% of embryos terminate ‘naturally’ anyway. Could the same hold for other species, such as primates? Therefore enabling them to have sex for fun and still not produce a baby? And of course, they could have homosexual relations for fun and not produce a baby.
June 4, 2005 at 1:41 am #23714
But they would never know when a baby might be produced, and once it is they would be burdened with supporting it….
June 4, 2005 at 4:13 pm #23755
you can know (roughly) when a baby may be produced. And if you are not protected, that’s why curettage exists. 🙂
June 4, 2005 at 8:32 pm #23793
I’m thinking polyandry happens when there’s much less females than males…it pays for the female to sleep around :D. Also (I don’t remember where I read this) gorillas exhibit some form of polyandry…the females will occasionally wander off to the neighboring tribes. If the males are not able to guard the females from other males polyandry is much more likely to happen.
June 11, 2005 at 6:20 pm #24362charles broughParticipant
I cannot believe the group acceps the supposition that humans are different than other animals for having sex to have children rather than because of instinct (“fun”)! All animals have sex because it fulfills their instinct to want it. The number of people who have sex they do not want to have just in order to have children has to be extremely small! A man really has to want to have sex in order to be able to have it!! If it does not stimulate him, he cannot perform!
It is easy to assume that sex is not instinctive when we see how different it is among different people under different circumstances, but all our important motivation is instinctive. It evolved in us. Growing up is a process by which the ideology of society causes us to adapt our instinctive urges in ways that better enable us to live and work together. Being social animals, we have to do that. Society helps us condition the way we express or carry out our instincts, our wants.
We are not a monogamous species. If we were monogamous, we would not need monogamous religious systems to condition our behavior. We adopted monagmous religious—all major world religious are monogamous—because modern society and civilization would be impossible otherwise. We adopted the patriarchal-monogamous system some 5,000 years ago and it was what made civilization possible. Whenever the system breaks down, as it is now, society crumbles—-i.e., social problems proliferate—and civilization declines. This cycle has happened many times in world history.
June 12, 2005 at 1:50 am #24388
Biologically speaking, I think being monogamous keeps the STD rate down.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.